45 comments:

Reality and ethics check for you,Gryphen. That last example is called cloning, and it is banned for humans. Genetically it's a bad idea, like inbreeding. It intensifies the flaws (mistakes in the genetic code). Remember Dolly the sheep? Horrible arthritis at a very early age. Ditto for the many cloned cattle.

The ethical issues of multiparent kids are astounding. Just look at what happens in two parent divorces and dividing weekend custody.

As far as cloning, this is not the same thing. In cloning, an exact copy of one parent's genetic code is made. You're right, the lack of genetic diversity is not the most efficient reproductive strategy.

This procedure would be a combination of three or more parental genomes--it would provide even more genetic diversity than you get with only two.

?????Reality check, every child conceived is a combination of two parents DNA, this is no different and it is not cloning. And all children ( except Barstools) have more than one parent.Besides, every child is a blessing according to Palin fans.

Can you read, science can indeed clone mammals. Science has done cross apecies manipulation with GMO's. How much dna must be transferred to make the DNA donor a parent? Meet my mom, my daddy dog and my tomato second mom?

I'm probably going to get slammed for this, but we have enough people in this world. Let's put more research into preventing pregnancies, and making it easier to adopt unwanted kids. (For the record, over 40 years ago I decided that the world was over populated, so I never had any kids.)

I won't slam you, I admire your conviction and that you followed through on it. Personally, I understand the "going to get slammed" feeling--we have two children from my first marriage (widowed), two children from my husband's first marriage (divorced), and three that we fostered/adopted together.

It is very easy to adopt through fostercare, on any given day there are well over 200,000 children available for adoption. Background checks, home checks, and then the cost is usually very close to just court costs. in fact, in multi adoptions ( adopting a group of siblings) many judges will do it for one small fee. I have adopted 4 children through fostercare and it was quite easy and inexpensive.

Fine for you, but some people want children. I'm very happy for gay couples who really want children to be able to have them. It's all well and good to be big hearted and adopt unwanted kids, but the reality is these kids come with huge problems. Many people are not equipped to deal with this. As Gryphen most likely knows, there are few agencies and little money to help the psychological problems many of these older kids have. It's a very sad situation. Love does not conquer all.

So nice of you to spread untrue info and act like it is a fact. None of my children that I happened to have adopted, had any issues except the lack of love and a family. They are all sucessful adults, good members of our society, and frankly, your remarks are why many kids never get a family to love them.

@9:44. I have first hand knowledge of this. I'm glad you had a good outcome. Some people do not. Drugs during pregnancy, neglect or abuse afterwards make happy outcomes more difficult. Some people are not able to parent these special needs. I work with these kids & parents. I'm being realistic here.

@10:55. I am the poster with the seven kids. Yes, what you are saying is true in my experience.

We had perhaps an easier time with our 3 adoptions because they were siblings and because we had fostered them before adopting. Still, their behaviors changed after the arrangement became permanent.

The social worker told us that children often behave like this when they start to feel safer, and then begin testing the limits. There were a couple of difficult years there, with our biological children as well as they adjusted.

But what we have now is worth it all. These children are not lost causes by any means, with competent counseling.

I never had kids because I just didn't want the hassle. I'm 50 and happy and it's enough to worry about just living my life so I really don't have anything to give to another generation. My folks are great, and they spent a lot of time and money raising my brother and I but neither of us decided to procreate. Instead we enjoy our parents and have vacation homes for them to spend time with us and we are all very happy with our choices.

Do away with sickness and you have to start having population controls like a sexy computer voice saying "Last Day.. Capricorn Twenty Ones." Yeah, just FYI that was a Logan's Run reference to Carrousel.

Picturing a roomful of doctors saying Hey, let's do it! Only the super rich will be able to afford it, but man think of the fees we could charge!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never had kids because I knew I didn't have what it takes to be on-call, 24/7, for the rest of my life. And my family's genes were best left to wither and die. If this latest preying on women wanna-haves is successful, it will simply reinforce the feeling that women belong at home having babies, whatever the cost. Way to go, ladies. Non-pregnant is not a disease.

No problem with that, but just so you know, there's really no issues with lesbians having bio children, your daughter can have a child. The only nice thing is now she can have a child with her partner's dna, too. BTW I hope she got up to Michigan for the last festival this past year, it was the very last one, sort of like a burning man festival for lesbians,...very important and hopefully she got there once in her lifetime.

In terms of the sperm, that surprises me, because it's one thing to add dna to an existing egg, but to create an egg out of thin air is certainly an achievement. So they must have used a stem cell from the man at some point which develops into an egg. Still, at some point, they need to have a surrogate mother carry the child to term. And during that process, that 3rd person contributes a lot of traits, and through the pregnancy process not only is nutrition a factor but the woman's own hormones and blood supply. Other organs, in fact, contribute to development. So with men, it seems much more complex than with 2 women. Plus with 2 women the baby has a mom....which I think every baby needs.

As far as living forever, we'll always die of something. 100 years ago people were dying of TB and Influenza, and now they die of Cancer and diseases of the immune system. In another 100 years our dna will be so corrupted by pollution and toxins that the leading cause of death will probably be genetic defects and weakening of the entire immune system and heart/lung functions.

Our only long term hope is to find another class m planet and colonize it, keeping our dna away from earth's population. We are not healthy. We are living longer, but so are zoo animals. We are living in self-created zoo, without interaction with nature and without wide open spaces and natural selection, and we're all on medication from a young age.

Hey, I'm 50 can't have children and at this age, who wants the hassle of someone else to care for? Sorry for those kids in foster care but really, the most genetically capable children from great gene pools DON'T end up in foster care, it's exactly the opposite and I'm too old and selfish to take on someone else's mistakes. I've known people that have adopted foster care kids in Alaska and it was no picnic and then they are stuck with these kids with their FASD and other drug and alcohol related problems, thanks but no thanks. Abortion is legal for a reason and some of these kids need not have been born.

The world is heavily overpopulated. Climate change can be set at the human population's doorstep. Why create more?

I don't have kids for 2 reasons. 1. By the age of 21 I chose not contribute to the world overpopulation. As another 40 years passed, I found the genetics to be faulty. I've a cousin who has 5 kids, a slew of grands, and a few great grands. ALL have the crappy genetics in their background.

We chose to have three, one to "replace" each of us and one to replace the "Zero population" crowd, but that's neither here nor there. If two gay people chose to have a child with both parent's dna, and that choice becomes available, I'm for their choice to choose just as I'm for the choice for adoption and abortion.Why do people think they have the right to control gay people's personal business in the first place? We hetero's can have offspring that shares our dna, but you? You're stuck with adoption as your only choice. Seriously?

The ethics of doing this doesn't bother me at all because ethics is a religious construct. Governmental regulation on the other hand is still dominated by religionists who seem to feel it's their business making the rules that govern everyone else the way they think their god wants things done. Society will eventually outpace those nimrods.

On the science involved in doing this I don't see any way other than starting with a donor egg, removing the existing DNA from it, inserting the DNA from two parents, either two males or two females and allowing the egg to develop. DNA from two female parents will never produce a male child and DNA from two males will never produce a female child. The child from two males will end up with two Y chromosomes which might cause problems down the road. Also, if you think it's difficult to extract the DNA from an egg cell it might be close to impossible to do the same with a sperm cell which is much, much smaller in size.

As fun as all this is to think about we're still decades away from parents being able to tailor the child they want by choosing traits from column A and traits from column B, etc. We may eventually get past that roadblock but the odds are better that the earth will boil away its atmosphere by way of global warming or get hit by an asteroid that no one sees coming yet.

About Me

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.